Saturday, May 1, 2021

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR MAY 2021

 
As we begin again...

While I am not really able to make any promises (and perhaps, this is a way of remaining somewhat cautious), I am hoping that the month of May will bring Savage Cinema back in earnest...even though life at the movies has not returned to the fullness of anything resembling normal as of this time. 

I will say that your friendly neighborhood film enthusiast is indeed fully vaccinated!! (How about you?) Even so, I am unquestionably more than conscious that our global pandemic is nowhere near being something that we can relegate firmly to the past, and to that end, I am not feeling so comfortable to return to the confines of a movie theater regardless of how much I miss it. It is still going to be some time, as far as I am concerned. 

But that being said, there is more than enough material for me to catch myself up on and I actually have notes for a few films I have seen over the previous few months that I can refer to for all new reviews...maybe. You see, dear readers, so much time has passed since I happened to see these films that having notes to refer to or not, the memories of those films are not as fresh as I would prefer them to being when I get down to writing a review. I am going to try and see what I can do and if it proves to not being as successful as I wish, then those reviews will be transformed into a new batch of "Savage Cinema's Short Takes." Only time will tell.

But yes, I am hoping that I can now fully return to this blogsite where I can write and share to my heart's content about this thing that I have loved so very much for so much of my lifetime. Thank you all for your patience with me and let's see where this month will take us...

Saturday, March 13, 2021

SAVAGE CINEMA UPDATE FOR MARCH 2021

 
Eagle eyed readers of this blogsite might have already noticed something different about this month's entry as opposed to all of the other monthly openers over these past 11 years and that is I am giving an update rather than providing "Coming Attractions."

As of this writing, we are essentially near the middle of the month and I am just now having the opportunity to write an introduction to the month's activities...which is the latest that I have ever written an opener. Secondly, today is March 13th, and one year ago was the very day where life essentially was altered completely due to COVID-19. It was the last day of my school being open before closing for nearly three months and of course, life went into lockdown, including all of our nation's movie theaters.

As life is going through another evolution with the arrival of the vaccines, and therefore the world feels to be gradually opening up again, life has indeed gotten even busier than it already is for me, which has then seriously impeded my time writing--a development that has provided me with considerable frustration, to tell you the truth. It is not as though I have nothing to write about. I have notes for two film reviews just waiting for me to tend to them and shape into brand new postings but I have not had ample time whatsoever to write them. 

Perhaps this month might be a month where Savage Cinema goes into a short hiatus. I am not sure but as filled as life is and as fast as this month is speeding  along, I cannot promise anything regarding new reviews just yet. But rest assured, Savage Cinema is not ending. It is just on a little bit of a pause for the time being. 

Keep watching this space and who knows, maybe by summer time, our theaters will be safe enough to venture into again. Please keep wearing your masks and remaining socially distanced. Please get your vaccination when it is your turn. Keep having hope. 

To be continued...

Sunday, February 14, 2021

FIRE IN THE HOLE: a review of "Malcolm & Marie"

"MALCOLM & MARIE"
Written and Directed by Sam Levinson
**** (four stars)
RATED R

"I feel like once you know someone is there for you, and once you know they love you, you never actually think of them again. It's not until you're about to lose someone that you finally pay attention."
-Marie Jones

It is forever striking to me to see how authentic a film is able to be while existing in a form that is completely inauthentic. 

That phenomenon is indeed the magic contained within the art and artistry of the movies and cinematic storytelling. The ability to manufacture a fully invented world, even one that is designed to resemble the very one in which we all exist, through means of an imagined story and characters populated by actors, combined with all of the technicians and creative departments, to gather bits and pieces of information in order to stitch it all together into a narrative created to elicit an emotional response and recognition from a viewer is something akin to a miracle to me. What's more is when the inauthenticity at hand is elevated, and the approximation of our perceived reality is upended, and yet the results remain emotionally recognizable. 

This sensation easily occurs from the greatest flights of fantasy. Or even take any film from a filmmaker like Wes Anderson or Quentin Tarantino, to name two filmmakers currently working and still producing work of exceedingly high quality. Both of those filmmakers revel in the meticulously completed invention of worlds that are not quite like our own real world but remain emotionally resonant, the sense of truth is unshakable even when the surroundings are filled with artifice. And yet, and also filtered through the sensibilities of each and every viewer, we all know only too well that feeling when the magic is not happening, when the fantasy feels false, when the story is not being believed, when that very inauthenticity reveals itself.  

Which brings me to Sam Levinson. 

Writer/Director Sam Levinson is a real curiosity for me. As he is the son of Writer/Producer/Director Barry Levinson, a filmmaker who has more than served as an inspiration with my love of film, as well as writing, with a body of work that includes nothing less than the likes of "Good Morning, Vietnam" (1987), "Rain Man" (1988), "Wag The Dog" (1997) and his "Baltimore series" which consists  of "Diner" (1982), "Tin Men" (1987), and "Avalon" (1990), Sam Levinson has already demonstrated that he possesses more than enough skill, talent and high cinematic style to burn. 

His HBO series "Euphoria" (2019-present), which he adapted from an Israeli series and largely wrote and directed himself, is a resoundingly dark teenage drama centered around the precarious recovery of high school drug addict Rue Bennett (played by Zendaya) and her connections to a collective of classmates as they all navigate the arenas of sex and sexual identity, body image issues, and pornography, in addition to drug addictions and the standard rites of passage via teenage angst.  

It is a compelling, and consistently riveting series but it is also an excessive one, bombastic to the point of being nearly irresponsible as Levinson has populated his cast with a full arsenal of gorgeous, model ready individuals engaging in all manner of debauchery which is visualized in a veritable sound and vision assault that exists somewhere between and the final third of Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" (1990), Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" (1994) and Danny Boyle's "Trainspotting" (1996)

Sam Levinson's approach throughout the series threw me off guard and not always in the best way, for when he zeroed in upon that authenticity, he held me tightly in his grasp, especially through his actual screenwriting which is often strikingly literate, deeply perceptive and elegantly profane. But when he stretched his visual palate, sometimes the result came off as exploitative or even grotesque. 

This was most notable within an episode when Rue, consumed with debilitating depression and struggling with sobriety, holes up within her bedroom compulsively watching a reality series while refusing to just allow herself to rise and go urinate, resulting in a dangerously inflated and infected bladder. For all of the emotional realism, we were also greeted with a perspective from that infected bladder, and in doing so (and while I certainly appreciate the risk taking), the realism was undercut by stylish overkill, thus deflating the authenticity, taking what could have been viewed as a stark warning and serving it up as the sort of desensitized damage usually witnessed in a Bret Easton Ellis novel.   

I watched the entire first season but have since struggled to commit myself to anything more should the series make a full return, partially due to its own hiatus as well as the effects of COVID 19, as the balance of authenticity/inauthenticity felt to be favored more towards sensationalism for my tastes. Yet, I remained curious as to what else Sam Levinson might pursue, as he unquestionably captured my attention.

With "Malcolm & Marie," Sam Levison has firmly proven to me that he is indeed the real deal, armed with a creative vision that affirms his creative personality is fully independent of his Father's work. In addition to being the first Hollywood production to be written, financed, produced and filmed during the pandemic last Summer over a period of a mere 16 days, the film showcases Levinson, working alongside his skeleton crew and two person cast in a feverishly focused collaboration ensuring that the style and substance remained in lockstep. 

What has resulted is a sharply stark, beautifully stylish and emotionally exhausting dark night in the soul of a couple that is magnetically riveting, strongly multi-layered and refreshingly bold to behold in this era of sequels, prequels, franchises, and all movies containing characters in costumes and capes. "Malcolm & Marie," by contrast, is a film of increasing and unflinching rarity and daring that speaks volumes with all of its unblinking revelations.     

Sam Levinson's "Malcolm & Marie" stars Zendaya and John David Washington as the titular couple, Marie Jones, a recovering drug addict and aspiring actress and Malcolm Elliot, a filmmaker and Marie's lover. The film, essentially playing out over real time, brings us dead center into a bracingly intense night once they return home from the successful premiere of Malcolm's debut directorial feature film, an experience that promises to bring him to the next plateau within his budding film career. Yet for  himself and Marie, regarding their life together, there is no next plateau if they are not able to comprehend, navigate and wrestle through their present. 

Sam Levinson's "Malcolm & Marie" is a fiercely driven, impassioned film that hurtles upon its own ruthless, ferocious energy and an often brutal emotional force. Both Zendaya and John David Washington deliver career defining and career elevating performances that make each of them absolutely magnetic to regard.

Over the film's first 13 minutes or so, Sam Levinson sets his stage brilliantly and completely, giving us the proper firmament to ground us spatially and emotionally. It is expertly staged and filmed. Malcolm & Marie returning home from the film premiere and on first view, the emotional levels are established. Malcolm in a state of..ahem..euphoria, while Maria is guarded, quieter, colder. Regard how Levinson tracks the camera through their home, allowing us to witness Marie in more stillness and silence as she uses the bathroom and then, prepares a pot of macaroni and cheese while Malcolm is rapturously uncoiled, brashly dancing to James Brown throughout their living room, including the window sills. No real dialogue of major significance has been said as of yet but we have our scene set perfectly, signaling the turbulence to come, and I remained rooted for the remainder of the film.     

Working beautifully in collaboration with Cinematographer Marcell Rev, who has visualized this film in luminous, startlingly crisp Black & White, provides an elegant darkness to an experience that feels like a couple's therapy session as boxing match. As harsh as the film often is, it is not a cynical or callous experience. On the contrary, it is the type of film that truly remains in exceedingly short supply, at least regarding the genre of the movie love story. For every movie we have seen in which we witness characters falling in love, Levinson however, has delivered a much more compelling narrative: the precarious nature of relationships when trying, fighting, and nearly failing to remain in love. 

And yet, a lot of the criticism that I have seen on-line from viewers to some reviews is directed towards the relentless, and often abusive nature of the fights witnessed within the film and how that brutality ultimately pushed some viewers from spending the complete running time with these characters. I have found that this understandable reaction is largely due to the nature of how and why people watch movies these days. 

Believe me, I get it. The average movie-goer, especially in our increasingly vitriolic society, does not wish to view something so emotionally and psychologically taxing when they essentially wish to unwind. I am honestly unable to recount to you how many people that I know that have expressed to me over the years that when they go to the movies they simply do not wish to think, that they just want to be entertained. I understand. 

But for me, a person who regards the movies as an art form, this is a dangerous precedent to be set when it comes to viewing the movies for viewers have gradually begun to treat the movies as being more disposable, which saddens me. To become so impatient. To become so conditioned to be given a climax every few minutes. To become so passive that one just cannot afford to feel uncomfortable. That simply depletes the movies of their inherent power as art does not always make you feel comfortable and nor should it. Art is designed to force you to take a step away from comfort zones to experience existence via the means of fictional characters and if done to its finest, we will see ourselves and understand ourselves and the people and world around us. 

With "Malcolm & Marie," Sam Levinson has assured that the action in the film is the dialogue and the level through which those words and actions are expressed through the performances. Therefore, all of the violence exists completely in the words. For it is in the dialogue where we view the arc of the night, which is ultimately the arc of the full relationship for all of its peaks and devastating valleys.  In doing so, we are given a front row seat into how they love and how they abuse each other.  Yes indeed, I know it is not enjoyable to watch a film during which the principals are fighting so much but trust me, "Malcolm & Marie" is not a film about people fighting. It is exceedingly more multi-layered and meaningful than anything so shallow, like any piece of so-called "reality television" during which those shows are only about watching people fight. 

For Zendaya, she has certainly already delivered her unquestionable charisma, wry charm and dramatic strengths within Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (2017) and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" (2019) as well as the aforementioned "Euphoria." With "Malcolm' & Marie," Zendaya has unearthed a previously unseen gravitas that affords her considerably unflinching power, so often in sequences in which she runs a quieter, more stoic visual counterpoint to the often roaring Washington. 

Marie Jones is not exactly a "still waters runs deep" kind of a character, considering the turbulence of her life, addictions, sobriety and sanity. But she operates within a systematic design of multi-layers that affords her the searing ability to cut exact swaths through all of Malcolm's idiosyncrasies, his self-righteous ego, his explosive megalomania, and tortured artist pose (whether justified or not as a Black filmmaker in a White industry) and sucker punch him with one expertly delivered jab that upends him.

Returning to the film's opening sequence, as Malcolm, flying so high from the reaction to his film (and buzzed on some alcohol), struts and prowls through their living room rallying against the racist tendencies that occur when some White film critics tend to provide racial readings and politicizing Black filmmakers they otherwise would not with White counterparts, Marie slyly states, "Malcolm, you're writing an Angela Davis biopic right now." When Malcolm slams film critics as being college educated elitists, Marie, through the veil of her cigarette smoke, softly yet sharply proclaims, "Malcolm, you have a college education." 

Marie has seen and heard all of this before and again and we can feel her mental exhaustion with being Malcolm's cheerleader, support system and sounding board throughout the entire gestation and creation of his film...a film in which her own life story served as inspiration, therefore, a work of art that would not exist without her and yet, every piece of it remains thankless.

Marie's rage is more than justified. And still, her grudges border on the supernatural with how unwilling she is to let Malcolm off of the proverbial hook. Maybe he doesn't deserve to be but the ways in which she twists the knife, so to speak, lead to many moments and periods during which she needlessly challenges him, provokes him and even abuses him. 

For some, I would wonder if they felt if the ways in which Marie communicates with Malcolm are all justifiable as a means for which to emotionally reach him. Again, perhaps so, as Malcolm is indeed so deeply inside of himself and his own needs.  

But there is something to be said for just being honest about one's intentions from the beginning. Is it fair for Marie to tell Malcolm that everything is OK when it is not? Is it fair for Marie to tell Malcolm to not worry about any slights when she honestly feels otherwise? These are the smaller moments that keep Malcolm unbalanced and therefore, his responses to her responses are used against him.

Even further, Marie can read Malcolm easily. She knows what will push his buttons and she seems only to eager to push them. As Malcolm rightfully detects tension, he questions all of the moments of the premiere night which may have caused her pain. He guesses (we know correctly), she deflects (we know she's lying) and all the while, it is Marie's hands on the wheel of their relationship in those moments because it keeps Malcom guessing when she could just express herself openly but refuses to. As Malcolm presses, because she knows that he will do so, Marie then expresses, "I promise you, it's not a good idea. Let's just talk tomorrow...It's not that big of a deal...Malcolm, I promise you. Nothing productive will be said tonight." Again she is not only lying, she is setting up bait she knows Malcolm is unable to leave alone. And yet if he did leave her bait alone, that would only enrage Marie further as she is also more than willing to exploit her own personal trauma and therefore Malcolm's fears to prove a point

Those specific steps in their dance of intimacy pepper and permeate the entire film and believe me, Marie is no monster and I do not feel that Levinson presented her as such. As misguided as her tactics are, she is so often resoundingly correct with her assertions, her criticisms, her grievances, her fury, her intense hurt and sorrow with how far and deeply Malcom has taken her and their relationship for granted, combined with her own sense of guilt, shame and relentless self-loathing due to her past and present as a recovering drug addict. Zendaya hits every note and level with pitch perfect precision and a level of empathy that wounds. She, like the film itself, cuts to the bone. 

As Malcolm, John David Washington is unleashed with a tremendous performance that provides him with his best role to date plus the confirmation that his talents are also within the genes as passed down by his Father, Denzel Washington. Yes, on-line commentary towards the character of Malcolm Elliot has been downright harsh, to the point where he is being seen as a new poster child for toxic masculinity. Hell, he even eats that bowl of mac and cheese (and serves himself seconds) with fury. While there is much to be explored and said about the specific topic, relegating him to the role of a monster is not only spectacularly unfair and fully devoid of nuance, it strips him of the humanity of which he is equally deserving as Marie. 

I would not think it to be unfair that much of Malcolm's rage throughout this night stems from the fact that after the arduous task of writing, directing and releasing a film, which has now received wide acclaim, all he wishes for is a night of celebratory release, a victory lap for himself. Unfortunately, this one desire is constantly being denied by Marie who seems to undercut his triumph at every step. whether through those aforementioned passive aggressive jabs and even lengthier commentaries (her monologue during which she imagines his dark future as a successful, sell-out filmmaker serves as a warning to remain grounded is nonetheless exceedingly cruel) and even more histrionic moments that serve as grim reminders of the turbulent trajectory of their relationship involving her addiction and his role as her care taker.

A sequence midway into the film is striking in its emotional brutality, one that is simultaneously directed towards Marie as well as being filled with self-doubt and self-lacerating. The sequence takes place shortly after Marie's dressing down of Malcolm's possible filmmaking future, to which she chides him as being "mediocre" instead of the visionary he wishes himself to be. It cuts deeply for Malcolm and from there he flies into a vicious monologue of how much Marie actually did not influence his art, which then goes into more personal territory involving past lovers he claims to have discarded, a fate that could be Maire's future should he just snap his fingers. 

It is an ugly sequence. Undoubtedly, especially as he is launching his vitriol while she is at her most physically vulnerable as she is taking a bath. But yet, listen to Malcolm's words as you study his face which Levinson keeps in a tight close up. Malcolm's eyes betray his violence. Of course, he knows 100% how deeply Marie inspired, influenced and contributed to his film, a reality that undercuts his desires to be that singular cinematic visionary. Yet, Marie's words forced him to face his fears of being disposable. So, what does he do but to try and make Marie feel equally disposable. Yes, Marie does seem to take a tally of her grievances against Malcolm, but he is looking to draw blood and the levels to which he eviscerates her is close to unforgivable.

But his trauma goes much deeper than just this night and his longing to be a celebrated artist. His trauma is housed in his honest love for Marie and his desire to tend and care while also existing in a state where he does feel resentful as being the caretaker is a thankless role to play. What Maire perceives as Malcolm's neediness is indeed Malcolm's love, concern and worry that Marie's past psychological instability will once again rear its terrifying head, potentially leading to tragic results. At points during the film when Marie disappears from view and Malcolm is compelled to seek her out, listen to how he repeatedly says her name. It is not out of need. It is out of fear. 

"It's about you being so scared and selfish that you have to break me down. Second guess everything I do...God forbid that I am secure enough in my own opinion that I don't need you...You just need a reason to be needed. Because if I don't need you, then what the hell am I doing with you, Marie? You want control because you can't imagine the reason I'm with you is because I love you."    

Malcolm is absolutely right when he makes these statements but while he is looking at Marie, he is also speaking to himself. 

Indeed, Sam Levenson's "Malcolm & Marie" is a rough ride but I felt it to be impassioned and purposeful. In a film comparison that I feel Malcolm would appreciate, considering it would go against the grain of the "white lady from the L.A. Times" he is constantly rallying against in his rants, I felt to film to be a close cousin to Mike Nichols's "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?" (1966), his cinematic adaptation of the rapacious Edward Albee play. 

Like that film, and in addition to its structure of one long, dark night in the life of a couple, Sam Levinson gets so much of the rhythms and details of how fights like these in relationships begin and flow. How they flare upwards, subside, and then, ignite all over again due to recriminations, resentments and a desire for one-upsmanship. I also loved how he utilized verbal silence and allowed that very silence to speak for both Malcolm and Marie, as well as scenes where songs playing upon their home speakers work as interior monologues our conversations. Even how they are dressed speak to their contradictions and juxtapositions. Marie, often more scantily clad, can be seen as being more open and less guarded but we realize that is not often the case. While the tightly dressed Malcolm, in dark suit and tie seems more closed off than he actually is. 

But again, "Malcolm & Marie" is not a film about a fight. And frankly, it is not solely about a relationship. It is entirely about authenticity and even authorship and therefore, ownership, for who claims the right to tell the story of your life, to ultimately define you? 

And that is why I sincerely hope and wish for everyone who tries this film to go through the fire and reach the film's final monologue, which is a jewel of a piece of writing and performance. Delivered by Marie, the speech is what the entire experience is leading towards and ultimately, it is the speech that the film superbly earns, which made me feel that all is not lost for these two. But just as these characters experience, for us as viewers, to get to the dawn, we have to go through the night. 

Sam Levinson's "Malcolm & Marie" is a film so worthy of discussion and debate as it so proudly stands itself straight upwards and demands to be noticed and experienced to its fullness. It refuses to be disposable and disregarded and nor should it be. To me, it speaks superbly to the vivid detail and excitement the movies can bring and cinematic spectacle can be regarded in the gift of performances, writing and direction just as much, if not more, than all manner of CGI bombast and operatic comic book mythology. 

For what is greater than the art and act of life being lived? Is there anything that could be more authentic?  

Saturday, February 6, 2021

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR FEBRUARY 2021

For all of the time at home, it is surprising to me with how I have somehow found myself with having less time to watch movies, and therefore write about them. Especially as there is considerable material that I wish to see. 

Just as with all of you, I am certain, life during COVID has more than performed quite a number upon me. All of the uncertainty and anxiety has more than compounded itself, leaning the fullness of its weight upon the stresses that have already existed as present parts of life. And yet, the solace and release I have always received through the art of the movies throughout my life, while still existing, I have found it more difficult to engage with. Be it an increased lack of time due to extra work or even a lack of motivation due to emotional and psychological fatigue, my movie watching has decreased and I miss them plus writing about them.

So...this month, I make no promises other than to just try. To try and make the time that is just for ME and full confession, that it a difficult thing for me to accomplish when all of the responsibilities of life demand my attention.

To think, the last time I set foot in a movie theater was nearly one year ago late this month. Please keep wearing your masks, washing your hands and keeping distant. Please get the vaccine when you have the opportunity to do so. 

I want to be in the dark theaters with you again.

Saturday, January 16, 2021

LET THE SUNSHINE IN: a review of "Wonder Woman 1984"

"WONDER WOMAN 1984"
Based upon the DC Comics series "Wonder Woman" created by William Moulton Marston 
Story by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns
Screenplay Written by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns & Dave Callaham
Directed by Patty Jenkins
***1/2 (three and a half stars) 
RATED PG 13

In the comic book movie wars continuously playing out upon our movie theater and now, television/streaming screens, the clear winner is so obviously Marvel over DC.

This is not to suggest that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is perfect by any means, due to the overall sameness of the films combined with a few subpar entries. And truth be told, Christopher Nolan's Batman (a DC character for those taking notes) trilogy, which consists of "Batman Begins" (2005), "The Dark Knight" (2008) and "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) all operate on a completely different, more sophisticated and decidedly more adult level than the Marvel movies. 

But even so, Nolan's series is also considerably elevated, so much so, that one doesn't really connect them to the movies that have become the growing yet comparatively struggling DC Cinematic Universe, which consists of, but is not limited to, Zack Snyder's "Man Of Steel" (2013) and the bombastic mess that is "Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice" (2016) and David Ayer's downright odious "Suicide Squad" (2016).

Where Marvel has so strongly played the long game, carefully building up its universe film by film into something where quality and content is relatively consistent with itself, DC has been playing catch up ever since, making for a series of films that are certainly expensive, but bludgeoning, bombastic, sometimes ugly, relentlessly grim rush jobs. And unlike the Marvel movies, the DC movies just aren't any fun!!!  

This is precisely what made Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman" (2017) feel like such a miracle!! It was, and remains, the best DC Comics entry by a wide mile due to its sense of absolute joy, excitement, exhilaration, unabashed and unquestionable sense of empowerment and yes...wonder...so much so, that even the trademark protracted, pyrotechnic drenched climax could not slow it down due to the combined enthusiasm of Jenkins and her leading superhero Gal Godot as Wonder Woman. 

Of course, the sequel to "Wonder Woman" was inevitable and now, at long last, after several postponed release dates due to the on-going pandemic, it has finally arrived via a joint release in theaters and streaming services. Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" is a high flying, splashy colored escapade that again showcases what a terrific screen presence Gal Godot actually is in this role and what a perfect team she makes with her Director. While it does not fly nearly as high as its predecessor, and despite quite a lot of the responses I have seen to this sequel, which have been decidedly muted at best, I enjoyed the film very much and for many of the same reasons that I loved the first film...although, this Wonder Woman arrives in a bit of a different tonal package.

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" opens with not one but two stellar prologues. The first is a flashback sequence to the hidden Amazonian island of Themyscira, as the child Diana Prince (Lilly Aspell), daughter and niece of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and General Antiope (Robin Wright), respectively, competes in an Amazon Olympics event, which results in a failure bot one packed with a lesson to be fully learned over the span of time.

Flash forward to 1984, where Diana Prince (Gal Godot), employed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. leads a solitary, insular life when she is not, however, secretly saving the day from all manner of crimes as Wonder Woman...in this case, a spectacular display of heroism as she foils a robbery of antiquities at a sprawling shopping mall. 

Enter the shy, awkward, genuinely sweet and habitually ignored Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), a geologist, crypto-zoologist and new employee to the Smithsonian, who gradually becomes friends with Diana. The twosome soon take considerable notice of one strange object from the failed robbery attempt, an item identified as the "Dreamstone" and is adorned by a Latin inscription which details that the occupant of the stone may be granted one wish.

Also in pursuit of the Dreamstone is Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a failed businessman posing as a wealthy donor in order to gain access to the Smithsonian. All three principals intertwine as Lord duplicitously woos the Dreamstone away from Barbara, which by this point, they have each accessed the power of the stone through their subconscious and/or fully intentional wishes. For Barbara, it is to have what she views as so powerful and engaging about Diana. For Max Lord, it is to become the stone, attaining its power to grant wishes entirely within himself. And for, Diana...her wish arrives when the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), miraculously returns from the dead.

Be careful what you wish for...   

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984," is pure, unadulterated escapism, ebulliently executed is an array of boundless energy, candyfloss colors and an unrepentant cheerfulness, which I found to be quite welcome. In our time of superhero stories and which are just so seemingly consumed with trying to "out dark" each other with an overblown self-seriousness, what Jenkins has devised feels to be more of a throwback to the untainted innocence of Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and Richard Lester's "Superman II" (1981), two films that remain at the pinnacle of the genre unquestionably.

No, "Wonder Woman 1984" is not operating at the same level as those aforementioned classics but it is finding itself somewhere within that similar cinematic neighborhood. One that is frothy, filled with derring do, is often a bit cheezy and corny but is so open hearted in its overall enthusiasm and belief in itself. 

A sequence where Diana and Steve taking flight in her new Invisible Jet as a rainbow of fireworks flash around them reminded me very much of the iconic sequence when Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) first take flight and set to John Williams' lushly romantic score augmented with Kidder's interior vocal of "Can You Read My Mind?" The also aforementioned shopping mall robbery sequence at the start of the film, plus other action set pieces, also carried that red, white and blue buoyancy, including a desert truck chase clearly inspired by Steven Spielberg's "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" (1981)

I do understand some of the criticism towards this film, which is decidedly less serious than the first film, especially as Diana flies through the skies with her Golden Lasso of Truth as some sort of hybrid between Spider-Man and 1970's Saturday morning television's "Isis" (1975-1977). But, I am thinking this may have been an intentional yet risky choice. 

With "Wonder Woman 1984," Patty Jenkins has created a film that feels to scale younger than its predecessor as its messages are broader in tone as opposed to the bolder, more epic tone of the first film. It is a conscious choice to be a comic book film that is striving for a sunshine positivity than the grim, darker tones that have become a bit too sadly commonplace and therefore taken much more seriously than they really need to be or actually are. 

Honestly, the world can take only so many films like "The Dark Knight" or even Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019), all of those I loved. I think that there is something to be said for just being lost in the glow and succumbing to what is essentially a fairy tale and that is what Jenkins has given. "Wonder Woman 1984" is a fairy tale, a fable, a children's story and I completely fell for its "Super Friends" styled aesthetic.

Even with all of the bubblegum, Patty Jenkins and Gal Godot do take the time to inject some gently placed social commentary within the proceedings. One aspect about the origin al film that I was truly astonished by was how never at any point was Wonder Woman, all dressed in her provocative and revealing costume, ever objectified sexually, by the characters and certainly not by Jenkins. With "Wonder Woman 1984," the sexual objectification of women by men is weaved cleverly into the narrative suggesting how sexist behaviors have escalated and have become more open and overt as time has marched on since the 1920's. 

Diana is consistently wolf-whistled and Barbara Minerva is nearly raped at one point, only to be rescued by Diana, which is later followed by Barbara's brutal retribution over her attacker once the powers of the Dreamstone continue to take hold. But, what I felt to be most notable was how Jenkins attributed sexist to both men and women in regards to how we perceive women  based upon how they appear. When we meet Barbara, she is the proverbial wallflower with unkempt hair, large glasses and an inability to walk in heels, and so, she is fully disregarded...and that even includes Diana initially. 

Yet, once that Dreamstone takes hold, affecting Barbara's appearance, wardrobe, gait and even sense of self-confidence, only then do people take notice, become attentive, hang onto her every word and is also seen as sexually desirable--all of wish fuels Barbara's wishes to increasingly darker and dangerous degrees as her rise in power comes at the expense of her humanity. Jenkins argues that Barbara Minerva was fully worth knowing, respecting and loving from the very start but because she did not fit into societal constructs of what women could and should be, she was rejected and that instilled her rage which becomes unleashed during her transformation into the Cheetah.

Furthermore, there is Max Lord, played to the hilt by Pedro Pascal, who is obviously having an ecstatic time being unleashed from the taciturn, stoic and even faceless quality in his performance as "The Mandolorian." To me, this character was so obviously Patty Jenkins taking broad swipes as Lord is really a stand in for...Donald Trump! Come on!! The failed businessman and low rent television charlatan who masquerades as a big shot in order to swindle people out of their fortunes for his own gain and is called a "loser" several times in the film. Who else could it be? 

Lord's rise to megalomania via the Dreamstone, to me, truly felt like Patty Jenkins was wrestling with her own reactions to our exceedingly dark times under the Trump presidency as we witness a dubious character being granted everything he wishes for and how, again, the unlimited power is all consuming, resulting in a figure who becomes uncontrollable, unrepentant, unfeeling and operates with a full absence of malice and empathy, existing solely to serve himself at the expense of the world. Again, Jenkins presents all of this with a heaping spoonful of sugar but just swallow it and the bitterness is there.      

Now...to address the inexplicable controversy of the return of Steve Trevor, with all of the calls from viewers and writers regarding sexual politics and  sexual consent, to them, I would ask...are you aware of what kind of film you are watching? We have a movie about a mythical Amazon who flies an Invisible Jet and there are real concerns about sexual consent as Steve's presence arrives courtesy of the Dreamstone. Remember, this film is set in 1984, and to that end, Jenkins is just having a riff on all of the body swap movies of that time period like Carl Reiner's "All Of Me" (1984), Rod Daniel's "Like Father, Like Son" (1987), Brian Gilbert's "Vice Versa" (1989) and of course, Penny Marshall's "Big" (1988). So, and with all of that in mind, can we just eject this non-controversy once?

Additionally, to also address the controversy/criticism over Diana's longing for Steve, as if being in love and mourning  over her first and one true love makes her a weaker figure. Really? Moving over to the Marvel movies, um...wasn't Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), mourning over his lost love throughout seven films over a ten year period?! We certainly never questioned his strength, resolve or even his manhood and neither should we for Diana Prince. In fact, this is a quality that has ensured the character has attained growth over the two films while still retaining the purity of her being, especially her womanhood. 

In "Wonder Woman 1984," we now have a Diana Prince who is older, wiser and in constant mourning over Steve as well as everyone she had grown close with, loved and lost over several decades, an experience which has simultaneously isolated her from humanity as she embraces and is determined to protect it. That makes for a touching dichotomy for the character which again, is not taken too seriously as to upend the fun. But, it does give the film a taste of gravity so it does not float away into the skies.

If I had a real criticism for the film, it would actually have to be in its construction of 1984. We, as a society, have amassed a tremendous amount of archival material from and of the 1980s that I woud feel it to be easier to replicate in a truthful manner, more like "Stranger Things" and decidedly less like Frank Coraci's "The Wedding Singer" (1998), which seemed to exist inside of a 1980s funhouse and was resoundingly unrepresentative of the actual decade. At any rate, Patty Jenkins' representation was not terribly successful either, an all White breakdancing crew in Washington D.C. notwithstanding. 

I guess it just felt like a plea for nostalgia rather than anything driven by storytelling.  Jenkins didn't seem to utilize much of the decade purposefully and even by mid to late film, the conceit felt to be abandoned entirely. I mean --why was this film set in 1984? What was the significance of using that year when the movie felt that it could take place in nearly any year?

Regardless, I had a good time and for me, I think that was all Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" aspired to be. No, the wealth of inspiration and empowerment that made the first film soar is not present but with our world so fraught with uncertainty and anxiety, it felt good to me to spend some time with a film that possessed such a sunnier disposition. 

Wonder Woman legitimately placed a smile upon my face and I cannot fault her, or her movie, for that. I can only be appreciative. 

Monday, January 11, 2021

PRETZEL LOGIC: a review of "Tenet"

"TENET"
Written, Produced and Directed by Christopher Nolan
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

I suppose that it was a matter of time and it can happen to the best of them, even to filmmakers as superlative as Christopher Nolan.

For the past 20 years Writer/Producer/Director Christopher Nolan has unquestionably emerged and cemented himself as a true filmmaking visionary as well as a figure who can pop one absolutely tremendous bag of cinematic popcorn. He is one of the few major American based filmmakers whose filmography possesses an uncommonly high level of quality control and has the box office dollars to back him up, therefore making him a rare modern era director who can open a film based upon his own name and reputation. And in these days of franchises, sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginings and the like, Nolan's output is largely original, and his detours into the Batman saga all fit perfectly into his consistent themes of identity, memory, causality and the ever tenuous grasp to sanity.

Yet, for his full body of work, Christopher Nolan's number one prevalent theme is the concept of time, in all of its fluidity and fragility, and it has been an ingenious threshold to tackle over and again and he has proven its inexhaustible quality as a storytelling engine. In fact, over the years, Nolan's films have become increasingly complex and challenging yet very much like the magicians at the core of Nolan's "The Prestige" (2006), he is a storyteller of considerable gifts as he has miraculously been able to make the density of his concept tangible and even soulful and his commitment to his characters and story always carries the day and us right along with him.

With his latest epic, "Tenet," it feels as if Christopher Nolan has not only outdone himself but to the point where he is considerably undone. While not a disaster or even a mess, "Tenet" is a film that struggles tremendously to even make sense of itself due to its plot and themes which twists the concept of time inside and out to a degree that is essentially impenetrable and therefore, nowhere near as enjoyable or as satisfying as the remainder of Nolan's output.  

Where the actual plot of "Tenet" is extremely straightforward--a nameless secret agent known only as The Protagonist (John David Washington) embarks upon a mission to stop World War III by using time manipulation in order to cease an attack upon the present from the future--yet the execution is anything but. In addition to all manner of truly extraordinary action set pieces, in which we witness the art of time shifting backwards and forwards simultaneously, the film delves into additional elements including the svelte art appraiser Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), her estranged husband, the Russian oligarch Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh) and the fight over their son, the pursuit of a case of plutonium, crucial algorithms, paradoxes, inversion turnstiles, temporal pincer movements and the clash of free will, destiny, order and entropy.

On the surface, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" falls firmly in line with every other film within his oeuvre. Merging the heist film, espionage adventure and science fiction, it is a muscular production, staggeringly well filmed, staged, edited and mounted and propelled triumphantly by Composer Ludwig Goransson's dynamically propulsive score. And unquestionably, John David Washington asserts himself and anchors the film beautifully in the leading role, more than affirming his skillful magnetism as evidenced in Spike Lee's "BlacKKKlansman" (2018). He is no fluke and is definitely his Father's son!!

Nolan's talents as an action filmmaker remain superbly impeccable and as always, he possess the ability to fully raise your pulse rates due to the speed, intensity and outstanding choreography of his action sequences. An attack upon an opera house makes for one absolutely sensational opening sequence. The ensuing fight fights, war sequences and car chases all flowing forwards and backwards simultaneously are all breathlessly superb in their visual heft and force. It is such a shame that this global pandemic has affected our lives seeing movies in the theaters so profoundly for if "Tenet" delivered anything at all, it is that large scaled cinema screen scope and breadth that Christopher Nolan is known for and with this film he undeniably delivered the goods and even more than as expected.

But if only there was a compelling story to give a greater weight to the proceedings as a whole. Or better yet, because the film does indeed have a compelling story...if Christopher Nolan had told his story in a fashion that was as tangible as everything else he has made previously. It is not the concept. I tis all in the execution of that concept. 

Believe me, I deeply appreciate, and am so thankful, that Nolan is a filmmaker who clearly trusts that his audiences are intelligent enough and patient enough to accept his films, which do blend the visceral with the cerebral, the philosophy and the physics alongside the popcorn. For me, this has been a joy from essentially the beginning with "Momento" (2000), his crime thriller told in reverse and from the point of view of a man with short term memory loss. It was an ingenious storytelling tool utilized ingeniously and then further made firm by the commitment to the character development as well as the conceit. 

This specific balance has served Nolan extremely well throughout his career, especially as his narratives grew more complicated, most notably, the levels of dream states and corresponding time signatures of "Inception" (2010) to the enormously risky "Interstellar" (2014), with its usages of wormholes, black holes, astrophysics and time travel. 

As each film grew in their respective complexities, Nolan always devised of ways to keep the audience engaged and involved without dumbing down his material. With "Inception" for instance, we had the character portrayed by Ellen Page (NOTE: I am using Elliot Page's former identifying name and gender solely to mark and specify that film and that time), who served as the audience stand-in or as the student while Leonardo DiCaprio's character was the teacher. With "Interstellar," for all of its intricacies, everything in the film emotionally hinged upon the tenuous relationship between Matthew McConaughey's astronaut Father and his daughter (played over three time periods by Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn, respectively).   

With each film, Christopher Nolan has upped the stakes conceptually, as if he wanted to see how far he could go as a storyteller and filmmaker and in doing so, possibly see how far he could take us in the audience as well. He always ensured a proper "through-line," an emotional core for us to get from one end of the film to the other.  For "Tenet" however, it is as if Nolan got inside his own head and couldn't find a way out, and in doing so, he left all of us behind in a story that left me confused, frustrated and even after having read a full synopsis after watching the film, I was even more confused as to what I had even experienced, regardless of how often I was held enthralled. 

To say that "Tenet" is confusing would be an understatement. Now, for a story such as the one this film is trying to tell, as with several of Christopher Nolan's past films, a certain level of disorientation is to be expected and it is indeed a sizeable part of the fun. With regards to "Tenet," I was enjoying myself so much during the film's spectacular opening sequence, which begins at the aforementioned opera house and then smash cuts to a sequence where The Protagonist is being tortured by some goons on some train tracks which then smash cuts again to The Protagonist finding himself upon a large boat with a CIA operative. The feelings of disorientation continued in a quiet montage sequence in which we view The Protagonist in various states of exercise, meditative thought and even retiring for sleep and even those moments are all presented as if part of a jigsaw. 

It is all so breathless, sleek and confidant that even though I was fully unsure as to what was happening and why, I was masterfully carried away. In fact, I even wondered if I was seeing some sort of quasi-sequel to "Inception" as Nolan was certainly delivering similar vibes. Yet once the film began marching further into its plot, and therefore its conundrums, Nolan surprisingly began to lose me.  

I think for me it all came to a head during a moment fairly early in the film between The Protagonist and a scientist who unfolds a considerable amount of exposition in order to explain how one bullet could move forwards in time, how another could move backwards, how to tell the difference and then, even further, how to manipulate and interact with items flowing backwards. It is all a bit much but then everything is waved away when the scientist proclaims, "Don't try to understand it."

That line of dialogue stuck with me for the remainder of the film, as if it was something Christopher Nolan was attempting to tell us in the audience because it is unthinkable to me that he had no idea of how complicated his story actually was. If he was indeed informing us to not think about his concepts terribly heavily and just go with the flow of what he was showing us, then I  do have to have quite a bit to quibble about with him. Because if it is not that important to understand his story, then why write it in such away where it cannot be understood? 

From a pure construction level of writing, especially when it comes to the concept of time travel, one does need to establish a certain set of parameters in order for us in the audience to follow along and ultimately connect with the story and characters. I do think of Robert Zemeckis's "Back To The Future" trilogy (1985/1989/1990), as his rules for time travel were air tight in their construction. You knew exactly in which year you were, when characters were interacting with or as their past, present or future selves. You were never lost. James Cameron's "The Terminator" (1984), also set up a tricky paradox which was equally well established, consistent and therefore, easy to follow and connect with. For that matter, Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) set up their time travel plotline with a even greater intricacy that will undoubtedly continue to play out over future Marvel films and television series and even still, we connected. 

Granted, all of those films lean more heavily into fantasy rather than Christopher Nolan's films which attempt to inject a scientific realism but I do think you understand my point. In "Tenet," there was really nothing to hang onto beyond its concept as his characters were mostly unknowable and essentially constructs to shuffle the plot points along. That, and astonishing visuals are not nearly enough to hang an entire movie upon...or are they?

Nolan's exquisite, exhausting war film "Dunkirk" (2017) actually achieved perfectly the very thing that ultimately failed for "Tenet." Within "Dunkirk," we experienced one World War II event over three different locations and over three different time periods of one hour, one day and one week, with Nolan delivering everything in an entirely non-linear structure, with scant dialogue and little character development. What worked was that the film showcased Nolan's theme of the elasticity of time when in the throes of war, for when pinned down by bullets underneath a boat while nearly drowning or spiraling through the air in an aerial dogfight, one minute can feel like a lifetime as you cling to what might be the final moments of your life. That was Nolan's "through-line" the connective tissue that merged his film to all of us and it was brilliant. "Tenet," by contrast has no "through-line." 

But there is yet another exceedingly crucial element to this film, and has actually been a complaint about Nolan's work, and has increased considerably over the years, reaching its highest levels with "Tenet," and that is his increasingly controversial sound design. 

Christopher Nolan has often been criticized that his movies are simultaneously too loud as well as harboring dialogue that is often either inaudible or incomprehensible. While  have felt that he does mix his films to the louder side of things, I haven't really had any issue with his dialogue levels until this film, during which large swaths of dialogue are nearly impossible to understand as it is either seemingly buried in the mix, or voiced by characters in intense rushed hushes while wearing gas masks and so on. This again brought me back to that line of dialogue: "Don't try to understand it."

Now unlike "Dunkirk," which was primarily a visual experience and was not fueled with dialogue, "Tenet," by contrast, is loaded end to end with dialogue, to the point where even Nolan regular Michael Caine shows up to pass along a few key words (mostly about Brooks Brothers suits and their ineffectiveness in the extremely high finance world The Protagonist is about to step into). But so often, I found myself struggling to understand exactly what the characters were saying and it, as you can imagine, began to frustrate me. Nolan has been asked about his sound mixes in interviews and has expressed that if audiences really just understand "the gist" of what is being said, that works well enough for him.

To that, I really bristle because then, I have to ask the question: Why write expansive dialogue if I am not meant to understand it, either conceptually or audibly? Why not just make "Tenet" a visual experience like "Dunkirk" then? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. I even mused that if I had watched the film with subtitles, would I have enjoyed the film more. And to that, I felt that would also serve as a rightful criticism of the film because I should be able to connect on the first viewing, subtitles or not. 

Certainly, there is a tremendous amount to admire about the film and believe me, it is a spectacle that contains some of his most ambitious material. But for me, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" was the film where he either reached too far or didn't reach far enough in every area of his writing and filmmaking in order to ensure the film hit every high note consistently. 

I have faith that Christopher Nolan will hit a grand slam again, and I am certain that I would watch this one again as well...but yeah, I'd better click on the subtitle feature.

Sunday, January 3, 2021

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2021

Happy New Year to all of you and in additional news since my most recent posting, on December 30, 2020, Savage Cinema reached its 11th birthday!!

As always, I have you to thank for this achievement because if not for you taking the time out of your lives to read anything that I have written and then, following up by reacting so positively to these reviews, I never would have written a second posting let alone 11 years worth of them. Yes, I write because I love to write but without you, writing in a vacuum just would not be as satisfying. Thank you so much for being here with me.

And now, here we are in January 2021, still with a global pandemic and the act of returning to a movie theater is nowhere near as safe as I would wish for situations to be for me to return to them--especially as the  COVID-19 numbers are as exceedingly high as they remain. While I long for the day to return to the movie theater to see films as they are designed to be seen and experienced, the streaming and On Demand services have by default proven themselves to being the format to see movies and in some ways, there are advantages to seeing films at home from obvious opportunities to pause, to stop, to return to them later, and to watch them at whichever time you choose rather than a movie theater's schedule. 

The disadvantage for me is that I am honestly overwhelmed. Much like the annual film festival in my city, which I have actually never attended due to feeling overwhelmed to the sheer amount of films being shown and the variety of venues screening them (where do I even start?), the sheer amount of films combined with which streaming format is showing them is a sort of opening of the floodgates that is counter productive for someone like myself.  Not only do I actually keep forgetting what is and is not yet streaming, I also struggle to remember which format has which film and so, this process has slowed me down more than I would like (in addition to being involved with the business of living and working within a pandemic and just having the mental energy to devote to my passion).

Even so, I will carry onwards and I am hoping that this very week, I can have my review for Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" ready and posted, as I just finished watching it very late last night.

And then, on the MUBI site, I also wanted to check out this new short film from Director Yorgos Lanthimos entitled "Nimic" and starring Matt Dillon.

At this time, it is probably much better for me to play it slow and steady rather than tossing out giant loads of ambition which ultimately goes unrealized. Nice and easy...that is the way to start a new year on Savage Cinema after such a tumultuous and unpredictable 2020. 

Please stay safe everyone. Please wear your masks and remain socially distanced and once yo have an opportunity to get yourselves vaccinated, do so. I wish to get to the other side of this entire awful experience as much as you do so let's all please band together and get to it.